06-19-2011, 06:10 PM
Gene,
Thanks for the link to Dr. Roberts' critique.
At one time I worked in an Air Force laboratory where we worked a number of research projects in competition and jointly with the other services.
The comment that "...researcher and facility in the nation DISAGREES with XXX's methodology and conclusions" can describe almost any service laboratory most, if not all, of the time. The fault is not directly in the laps of the individuals, but rather the overriding need to avoid chaos by making premature changes. One of my longstanding frustrations was that this sense of caution was over-applied. The mantra was "no change" until the new method is proven and mature.
The discussion also helps validate the need to wisely design and execute testing that will ultimately be used for advocacy. The claim will be that everything worth testing has been tested -- several times.
Our opportunity for reclama will lie in having a protocol that will stand up to a peer review (in the academic literature) and to work with the right messengers.
The "right messengers" are possibly more critical than excellent tests. These are folks who, when convinced of the value of a new idea, can influence folks who control money in industry and government. They can take our test results and coarse analyses to the right folks and give the system a chance.
Thanks for the link to Dr. Roberts' critique.
At one time I worked in an Air Force laboratory where we worked a number of research projects in competition and jointly with the other services.
The comment that "...researcher and facility in the nation DISAGREES with XXX's methodology and conclusions" can describe almost any service laboratory most, if not all, of the time. The fault is not directly in the laps of the individuals, but rather the overriding need to avoid chaos by making premature changes. One of my longstanding frustrations was that this sense of caution was over-applied. The mantra was "no change" until the new method is proven and mature.
The discussion also helps validate the need to wisely design and execute testing that will ultimately be used for advocacy. The claim will be that everything worth testing has been tested -- several times.
Our opportunity for reclama will lie in having a protocol that will stand up to a peer review (in the academic literature) and to work with the right messengers.
The "right messengers" are possibly more critical than excellent tests. These are folks who, when convinced of the value of a new idea, can influence folks who control money in industry and government. They can take our test results and coarse analyses to the right folks and give the system a chance.